Case Details

Citation(s)
2019 SLG 340 2019 SLD 340 2019 PLJ 17
Lahore High Court
W.P. No. 1597 of 2017, decision & hearing Dated: 19.01.2017.
ABDUL RAHMAN AURANGZEB, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mr. Mumtaz-ul-Hassan, Advocate

FESCO LTD, ETC

VS

ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, ETC.

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42

Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-- ----Art. 199--Specific Relief Act, 1877, S. 42--Constitutional petition--Suit for declaration--Ex-parte decreed--Application for setting aside ex-parte decree--Dismissed--Application for condonation of delay--No plausible reason advanced by petitioners and they have just stated that they had not get any knowledge of dismissal of application setting aside ex-parte and decree--Certainly, this is no ground for filing of revision petition after lapse of statutory period for filing of revision petition--Additional District Judge vide his order rightly observed that petition filed by petitioner is misconceived and petitioners have failed to explain delay of each and every day for condonation of delay, therefore, no illegality or irregularity was committed by revisional Court while dispensing order dated 31.10.2016--Department has deputed number of officials in Courts to watch and pursue interest of department but slackness on behalf of department put petitioners/defendants at fag end--Before a Court of law department or a layman all are equal and no preference can be given on basis of departmental organization--Therefore, order passed by learned Civil Court as well as by learned Revisional Court requires no interference through exercise of constitutional jurisdiction by this Court--Petition dismissed. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: ABDUL RAHMAN AURANGZEB, JUSTICE---.--- Through this constitutional petition, the petitioners challenged the validity of the order dated 03.12.2015 by virtue of which the learned Civil Judge dismissed the application for restoration of petition for setting-aside ex-partejudgment and decree dated 13.06.2011 against the petitioners/defendants and thereafter the revision petition was also met the same fate on 31.10.2016. 2. Heard. Record perused. 3. Precise facts of the case are that the Respondent No. 3/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against the petitioners/defendants with the prayer that the electricity bill amounting to Rs. 52,738/- alongwith disconnection order is against the facts, based on mala fide and the electricity connection of the Respondent No. 3/plaintiff shall not be disconnected against the said…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492